The problem is that you’re looking at disparate groups of offenders. What sort of person gets a community sentence and what sort of person gets a prison term? A first time offender who was under the influence of alcohol but otherwise in gainful employment – do you send him to prison? Someone with 117 offenses before his seventeenth birthday who has had any number of community orders already – and violated them all – give him another chance?

Prison works. It is the only thing we know about crime.

“Prison works. It is the only thing we know about crime.”

Or “I don’t care about the facts!” in other words

An enquiry into whether intensive community sentences were more effective in stopping persistent, low-level offending than short prison terms effectively says prison does not work.

You’re making ‘effectively’ do quite a lot of work there. What the report actually says is that short prison sentences are (or can be) less effective than non-custodial alternatives for low-level offenders.

We were not considering sentences for the perpetrators of serious and violent crime. For those offenders, the panel agree that custody is the only just and effective punishment. We were considering the most effective sentences for the great number of low-level offenders who are currently filling our prisons to breaking point – and who leave prison only to offend again, and again.

I’m a reasonably mainstream Conservative on most things really, and I’d have agreed with the findings of this report before I read it.

I suppose the obvious (nay, looked for) response to the claim that “prison does not work” is, “well, we might as well do away with prisons, then”.

On the other hand, you could ask, “how can we change prison so that it does work?”

Personally though, I’m all for Ken Clarke’s “revolution”. Why not, eh? Like any possible solution, it might work, and, if nothing else, it’ll give me the opportunity to say, “I told you so”, when it doesn’t.

Prison works

For various definitions of “works”.

An enquiry into whether intensive community sentences were more effective in stopping persistent, low-level offending than short prison terms effectively says prison does not work.

You’re making ‘effectively’ do quite a lot of work there. What the report actually says is that short prison sentences are (or can be) less effective than non-custodial alternatives for low-level offenders.

Quite… I don’t understand why the report’s conclusion has been extrapolated by Sunny to cover all offenders.

4. vimothy

Personally though, I’m all for Ken Clarke’s “revolution”. Why not, eh?

Because if you get it wrong, people die. They get raped. They get beaten into a pulp. These are not toys. These are real people who will shed real blood and feel real pain. This is not a child’s game. It is adult business and it should be confined to those capable of adult behaviour.

Like any possible solution, it might work, and, if nothing else, it’ll give me the opportunity to say, “I told you so”, when it doesn’t.

We know what works. More prison. America did all it could to abolish prison. Crime exploded. They had enough and got tough. Crime has dropped. Prison works. You want to stand over all the dead people getting the policy wrong will cause and gloat you were right? Nice.

Let me point out the obvious – Marc Dutroux was sentenced to 13 years for the kidnap and rape of five girls. He served just three. On release he kidnapped, raped, and tortured six more. Four of whom he also killed. Two by burying them alive. The other two were chained up in his basement while he served another short sentence and so starved to death in their own filth.

If he had served his full sentence, those girls would be alive. If the Left had not won control of the Belgium prison system, they would still be alive.

I would suggest, politely, that this is a serious subject and wanting to say “I told you so” is not an appropriate response.

SMFS, this piece is about replacing prison sentences with community service for relatively MINOR offenses, a policy that comes with a whole host of pros and cons. Conflating that with a ridiculously lax policy towards multiple murderers is fudging the issue to say the least.

Giving, say, pickpockets community sentences so that they can give back to society, keep their jobs (if they have one) and not spend several instructive months in the company of more experienced thieves will probably not lead to us all being murdered in our beds. Turn your hysteria dial down to “simmer”, would you?

Quite… I don’t understand why the report’s conclusion has been extrapolated by Sunny to cover all offenders.

Because it’s a side-bar story, and thus obliged to be misleading, inaccurate or flat out untrue in at least one particular. You can’t argue with tradition.

8. Chaise Guevara

SMFS, this piece is about replacing prison sentences with community service for relatively MINOR offenses, a policy that comes with a whole host of pros and cons. Conflating that with a ridiculously lax policy towards multiple murderers is fudging the issue to say the least.

I am not. But conversations move on. Especially when the header for this story is “Prison doesn’t work, says major report”. Not “Prison doesn’t work for pick pockets, says major report”. More so when someone starts talking about Ken Clarke’s proposals to go back to the days when we jailed far fewer people. When other people start talking about lax policies towards serious criminals, then I think it is reasonable that I am allowed to talk about lax policies towards serious criminals too.

Nor are there any pros to Community Sentences.

Giving, say, pickpockets community sentences so that they can give back to society, keep their jobs (if they have one) and not spend several instructive months in the company of more experienced thieves will probably not lead to us all being murdered in our beds. Turn your hysteria dial down to “simmer”, would you?

I disagree actually. Not in the polemical sense, but in the way that sensible people of any political background ought to be able to agree over dinner. If we show that we are not serious about punishment, we not only encourage pick pockets, we also encourage murderers. What we need is a zero tolerance policy in society as a whole. So that criminals are not heroes. They are not admired. They are not invited to the best society functions. They are hated and despised. Starting with pick pockets and going all the way up. If we say that a little recreational theft is fine, then it is only a matter of time before a lot more people are murdered. As has happened in the UK.

Needless to say I also disagree about the pickpocket keeping his job. The more consequences there are, the better and prison is better than any other sentence.

SMFS,

prison is better than any other sentence.

Better at what? And please substantiate your assertion.

@ 10 SMFS

“I am not. But conversations move on. Especially when the header for this story is “Prison doesn’t work, says major report”. Not “Prison doesn’t work for pick pockets, says major report”.”

TBH, I’m increasingly minded to treat all headlines on LC as irrelevant, seeing as they’re so rarely accurate.

“More so when someone starts talking about Ken Clarke’s proposals to go back to the days when we jailed far fewer people. When other people start talking about lax policies towards serious criminals, then I think it is reasonable that I am allowed to talk about lax policies towards serious criminals too.”

As far as I can see, you introduced the idea of lax policies towards serious criminals. Oh, Clarke may have proposed slightly shorter sentences, but I don’t see anyone in government or on this thread suggesting that murders should get an average of less than a year per victim.

The problem is that you’re racing towards an absurd example and hence failing to engage with any of the more sensible suggestions being made. It’s a straw man attack.

“Nor are there any pros to Community Sentences.”

I already listed some, and you haven’t addressed them all. There are also others (see below, for example).

“If we show that we are not serious about punishment, we not only encourage pick pockets, we also encourage murderers.”

Nonsense. What evidence is there to suggest that reducing sentences for minor crimes encourages murder if you keep murder sentences the same?

“What we need is a zero tolerance policy in society as a whole. So that criminals are not heroes. They are not admired. They are not invited to the best society functions.”

I’m not sure to what extent you think this actually happens. If you’re talking principally about yobs getting respect from their peers for committing crimes, I suspect that a prison sentence is “cooler” – and makes you more of a martyr – than a rather embarrassing stint cleaning up the streets in a dayglo jacket.

“They are hated and despised. Starting with pick pockets and going all the way up.”

Why would higher prison sentences make us hate criminals more? If anything the opposite is true: people hate criminals partly because they’re perceived to get off light.

“If we say that a little recreational theft is fine, then it is only a matter of time before a lot more people are murdered. As has happened in the UK.”

Straw man; unsubstantiated claim (to clarify, nobody’s saying theft is “fine”, and a rising murder rate cannot be assumed to be caused by whatever it is SMFS dislikes the most).

“Needless to say I also disagree about the pickpocket keeping his job. The more consequences there are, the better and prison is better than any other sentence.”

And what do you expect the guy to do when he gets out? Maybe get a new job with his criminal record? No, he’s likely to return to crime: a consequence that seems not to bother you as long as we can appear “tough”, regardless of whether that actually improves things for the law-abiding.

@7 – “America did all it could to abolish prison.”

About the same time as they became Stalinist, yes. Wait…

Anyway everyone – oh look, So Shilling For Pay has made another thread all about his right wing trolling, not the article.

If we were to send half as many people to prison, but have them on longer rehabilitation programmes it would cost just as much or even more. 40,000 people out of prison and put on these programmes would take an army of workers to run.

Just having lads picking up litter and cleaning grafitti isn’t enough. and even that takes a lot of staff to cover. I’ve seen people doing this along a canal near where I live. The young men walk ahead talking together and picking up litter as they go, and the supervisor lags way behind, just taking a stroll. I’m sure that some of the offenders bring pot to smoke, or sneak some drink along. Why wouldn’t they?

A bit of hard labour like this sounds good though. Building a boardwalk for hikers on the top of a mountain overlooking Belfast.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/the-exoffenders-who-built-their-own-path-to-a-better-life-16040817.html

@11 – For intimidating the proles. Get with SMFS’s style, really.

Leon Wolfson, unlike you, SMFS is at least on-topic. HTH.

damon,

If we were to send half as many people to prison, but have them on longer rehabilitation programmes it would cost just as much or even more.

Please substantiate that assertion.

40,000 people out of prison and put on these programmes would take an army of workers to run.

The report argues that such programmes might be cheaper than prison (“Three months in prison costs a bare minimum of £11,000 – the full 12 month Manchester [Intensive Alternative to Custody] course is approximately half that”) and save us money in the long-term (“Latest estimates suggest that this endless cycle of crime* costs us between £7bn and £10bn a year”).

* “Currently nearly two-thirds of offenders serving short sentences are reconvicted within a year. Latest estimates suggest that this endless cycle of crime costs us between £7bn and £10bn a year.”

ukliberty, firstly I don’t understand why prison costs more than £100 a day per prisoner. That’s one prison officer’s wages. Although I’ve read that there are 26,474 prison officers for about 80,000 inmates.

I would support whatever works, but I don’t think they’ve got the will or bottle to really experiment enough with different kind of regimes inside and outside of prison.
With that many officers, half of them should have teaching skills. We’ve probably got lumpen thick prison officers who don’t make much difference. Prisoners should be put on intensive teaching programmes, and not have regular TV, but only an internal prison TV station that’s full of educational programmes, documentaries and news.

@16 – Sorry, I mistook for you someone NOT paid to shill. I won’t make that mistake again.

Leon, I’ve come to the conclusion that you have ‘issues’, therefore I won’t respond to you again, except about your opportunity to earn the Médecins Sans Frontières £50 in the other thread.

damon,

ukliberty, firstly I don’t understand why prison costs more than £100 a day per prisoner. That’s one prison officer’s wages. Although I’ve read that there are 26,474 prison officers for about 80,000 inmates.

I confess I don’t know why it costs so much (certainly not solely due to prison officers salaries) – then again, I don’t think the amount given in such reports is disputed by anyone.

I read that building one prison is as expensive as building two hospitals – I don’t know how accurate that is, but if it’s true it gives an indication of the magnitude of costs we are talking about.

I would support whatever works, but I don’t think they’ve got the will or bottle to really experiment enough with different kind of regimes inside and outside of prison.

The report agrees that it’s politically difficult to persuade people to support the kind of programmes it talks about.

Of course from the panopticon from which the righteous sit,prison works just fine thanks very much.The only problem is it releases offenders.